Heh, I found a similar site a number of years back that postulated the effects of a full nuclear exchange between the US and USSR. Up to that point, I had always figured that I probably lived far enough away from the major metro centers and military bases to survive. Then the site helpfully pointed out that I did live about a mile from a Boeing space plant, and that I'd most likely be vaporized instead. Good to know!

I saw a comment somewhere which rings true: LaPierre's crazy ranting makes a lot more sense when you realize his goal is to get people to buy more guns. The NRA these days is a lobby for the gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

As near as I can tell from what I've read, the NRA still gets the majority of their income from their members and individuals through dues and subscriptions, as well as donations, though the donations sometimes go through gun dealers. They have programs where you can add a donation to the price of your purchase. So while they get a decent chunk from the gun industry, the majority does not come from those companies.

But the bribes and kickbacks, those come from the companies. Two week 'meeting' in the Bahamas? Weekend strategy con-fab in Telluride or Vail? Luxury vehicles provided at every site for getting around? All that shit's not the flock, it's the slaughterhouses.

I had thought I had finished my facebook purge of all the SRB types I knew from college durning the elections but I guess not. This lovely little jem just showed up on my feed,

Quote:

Facebook made over 1 billion dollars in the U.S. alone in 2012....They are not required to pay income tax this year. In fact, they are getting a refund of 429 million dollars (almost half a billion). Why?? My personal opinion: Facebook is a liberal agenda vehicle. The President has had multiple personal meetings with Zuck over the last year...too coincidental?? Yep. And isn't "loophole closing" Obamas biggest talking point???? Just food for thought...#hypocrisy

Welp, there goes another 'sane' republican...

I thought tax dodges for huge companies were awesome and to be supported so the job creators fix the economy.

I had thought I had finished my facebook purge of all the SRB types I knew from college durning the elections but I guess not. This lovely little jem just showed up on my feed,

Quote:

Facebook made over 1 billion dollars in the U.S. alone in 2012....They are not required to pay income tax this year. In fact, they are getting a refund of 429 million dollars (almost half a billion). Why?? My personal opinion: Facebook is a liberal agenda vehicle. The President has had multiple personal meetings with Zuck over the last year...too coincidental?? Yep. And isn't "loophole closing" Obamas biggest talking point???? Just food for thought...#hypocrisy

Welp, there goes another 'sane' republican...

I thought tax dodges for huge companies were awesome and to be supported so the job creators fix the economy.

Then you have people, I've come across several, that think that nuclear bomb detentions are sufficiently powerful that if you got a few hundred together you could tear the planet earth apart.

In the 2002 remake of "The Time Machine" a 20 MT device knocks the moon out of orbit!

There is no theoretical limit I'm aware of for the maximum yield of a hydrogen bomb. Want a bigger explosion? Add more fuel. But I supposed there is a practical limit of some sort. It might be possible to build one in cells that trigger one after another due to the compression wave from the first trigger device, so that you could spread the bombs out over a flat area instead of having to build one huge compact mass.

I had thought I had finished my facebook purge of all the SRB types I knew from college durning the elections but I guess not. This lovely little jem just showed up on my feed,

Quote:

Facebook made over 1 billion dollars in the U.S. alone in 2012....They are not required to pay income tax this year. In fact, they are getting a refund of 429 million dollars (almost half a billion). Why?? My personal opinion: Facebook is a liberal agenda vehicle. The President has had multiple personal meetings with Zuck over the last year...too coincidental?? Yep. And isn't "loophole closing" Obamas biggest talking point???? Just food for thought...#hypocrisy

Welp, there goes another 'sane' republican...

I thought tax dodges for huge companies were awesome and to be supported so the job creators fix the economy.

I had thought I had finished my facebook purge of all the SRB types I knew from college durning the elections but I guess not. This lovely little jem just showed up on my feed,

Quote:

Facebook made over 1 billion dollars in the U.S. alone in 2012....They are not required to pay income tax this year. In fact, they are getting a refund of 429 million dollars (almost half a billion). Why?? My personal opinion: Facebook is a liberal agenda vehicle. The President has had multiple personal meetings with Zuck over the last year...too coincidental?? Yep. And isn't "loophole closing" Obamas biggest talking point???? Just food for thought...#hypocrisy

Welp, there goes another 'sane' republican...

I thought tax dodges for huge companies were awesome and to be supported so the job creators fix the economy.

Then you have people, I've come across several, that think that nuclear bomb detentions are sufficiently powerful that if you got a few hundred together you could tear the planet earth apart.

In the 2002 remake of "The Time Machine" a 20 MT device knocks the moon out of orbit!

There is no theoretical limit I'm aware of for the maximum yield of a hydrogen bomb. Want a bigger explosion? Add more fuel. But I supposed there is a practical limit of some sort. It might be possible to build one in cells that trigger one after another due to the compression wave from the first trigger device, so that you could spread the bombs out over a flat area instead of having to build one huge compact mass.

Whu? What's that got to do with the 20MT figure?

e = mv^2sqrt e/m = v

I'm not going to do all the math, because this isn't the Lets Do Math thread.Instead I'll get some quick numbers from the internet, and do some questionable math:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield to get the 15Mt energy. And I googled the mass of the moon. I used google scientific calculator because for some reason I forgot my mac already had one. Oops.

And the every year the moon moves away by 3.8cm. So (0.0038m/yr)/(31,557,600 seconds/yr) = 0.00000000012041m/s

and more dirty calculations, it would take ~90 days for the moon to return back to it's original orbit after the a 15MT nuclear detonation above it's surface (assuming the inertia of the moon over comes the energy from a 15MT immediately (and I'm totally making shit up here now and way out of my depth, if I wasn't already from the start )).

IOW: using the awesome power of (ill abused and very likely wrong) math and physics, a 15MT nuclear detonation literally will move the moon by a fraction of this much: -><-

Well, I think I win the Ars weekend thread derailment dildo of death award.

There is no theoretical limit I'm aware of for the maximum yield of a hydrogen bomb. Want a bigger explosion? Add more fuel.

IANAPhysicist, but I believe that is not true. Over a certain limit the explosion blows the bomb apart before further fusion and/or fission can take place.

Quote:

It might be possible to build one in cells that trigger one after another due to the compression wave from the first trigger device

That's pretty much how a thermonuclear device works, except that radiation from the fission primary causes the compression of the plutonium "sparkplug" in the fusion secondary which in turn sets the fusion reaction in motion. To increase the yield, additional secondaries are used.

Quote:

The Teller-Ulam fusion bomb described so far is called a "two stage bomb". The fission trigger (the first stage) compresses the fusion capsule (the second stage). As powerful as the trigger is, there is a limit to how large a capsule it can compress in the brief time available. If a still bigger bomb is desired, then the explosion of the fusion secondary can be used to compress and explode a larger third stage. Each stage can be 10-100 times the size of the previous stage. The 50 Mt bomb mentioned above was a three stage weapon.

Or as Dr. Strangelove put it: "If you merely wish to bury bombs, there is no limit to the size"

I had thought I had finished my facebook purge of all the SRB types I knew from college durning the elections but I guess not. This lovely little jem just showed up on my feed,

Quote:

Facebook made over 1 billion dollars in the U.S. alone in 2012....They are not required to pay income tax this year. In fact, they are getting a refund of 429 million dollars (almost half a billion). Why?? My personal opinion: Facebook is a liberal agenda vehicle. The President has had multiple personal meetings with Zuck over the last year...too coincidental?? Yep. And isn't "loophole closing" Obamas biggest talking point???? Just food for thought...#hypocrisy

Welp, there goes another 'sane' republican...

I thought tax dodges for huge companies were awesome and to be supported so the job creators fix the economy.

So long as they're not the type of SRB to say "the details don't matter, it's still a good point!", which I suspect many of us have dealt with.

That's pretty much the default response when I post a Snopes linke to something asinine. My wife's cousin has no started proactively beginning her posts with "While this may not be true, it's still a good point," to head me off.

If it ever got to the point of that Boeing plant going up, you'd thank your lucky stars that you were quickly vaporized. See "The Day After" and "Threads".

Yes....especially "Threads". I feel they should make that manditory viewing on TV every year.

I would rather be vaporized than to put up with the "afterward" if it is even just 50% similar to Threads.

I can't remember what it was I was listening to or watching, but they were talking global apocalypse type situations, and one point I had never considered was brought up by a psychologist; he said that the amount of PTS people would suffer from something like that would be catastrophic, even if you walked away unscathed physically. And worse than that would be those not at all encumbered by PTS, i.e. sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. In other words, the most hardy survivors would be exactly the last people you'd want to run into after a catastrophe.

So long as they're not the type of SRB to say "the details don't matter, it's still a good point!", which I suspect many of us have dealt with.

That's pretty much the default response when I post a Snopes linke to something asinine. My wife's cousin has no started proactively beginning her posts with "While this may not be true, it's still a good point," to head me off.

That is insane. If it isn't true it cannot be a good point. I can't claim that Speaker Boehner eats a baby for lunch each day and that just goes to prove he is evil and then claim it is still a good point when it is pointed out to me that he doesn't eat babies at all. Even if he were evil the claim would still not be a good point as it is false and being so doesn't support the claim that he is evil.

How can people fail to see that a false statement is just that, false?

It makes a philosophical point they agree with, which is all that matters (to them). Never mind how asinine or sophistic the "reasoning" involved, or how lacking in facts. The most recent specimen I've been given (via FB):

It makes a philosophical point they agree with, which is all that matters (to them). Never mind how asinine or sophistic the "reasoning" involved, or how lacking in facts. The most recent specimen I've been given (via FB):

It makes a philosophical point they agree with, which is all that matters (to them). Never mind how asinine or sophistic the "reasoning" involved, or how lacking in facts. The most recent specimen I've been given (via FB):

That was exactly her most recent post. I responded with: "Isn't that just an example of a poorly structured Absence Theodicy argument? It's worth sharing as an example of confirmation bias I suppose, but I'm not sure I see a lot of value beyond that."

It makes a philosophical point they agree with, which is all that matters (to them). Never mind how asinine or sophistic the "reasoning" involved, or how lacking in facts. The most recent specimen I've been given (via FB):

I saw a comment somewhere which rings true: LaPierre's crazy ranting makes a lot more sense when you realize his goal is to get people to buy more guns. The NRA these days is a lobby for the gun manufacturers, not gun owners.

As near as I can tell from what I've read, the NRA still gets the majority of their income from their members and individuals through dues and subscriptions, as well as donations, though the donations sometimes go through gun dealers. They have programs where you can add a donation to the price of your purchase. So while they get a decent chunk from the gun industry, the majority does not come from those companies.

But the bribes and kickbacks, those come from the companies. Two week 'meeting' in the Bahamas? Weekend strategy con-fab in Telluride or Vail? Luxury vehicles provided at every site for getting around? All that shit's not the flock, it's the slaughterhouses.

This doesn't really make sense to me, but we can continue to discuss this in the Gun Control thread if you want to re-post there.

It makes a philosophical point they agree with, which is all that matters (to them). Never mind how asinine or sophistic the "reasoning" involved, or how lacking in facts. The most recent specimen I've been given (via FB):

It makes a philosophical point they agree with, which is all that matters (to them). Never mind how asinine or sophistic the "reasoning" involved, or how lacking in facts. The most recent specimen I've been given (via FB):

Fuck! Sorry, but could you at least either inline that or point out it's some retarded religious dialogue? The link doesn't appear complete here on the forums, and I hate shit like that.

PROTIP: hover your mouse pointer over the link and look at your status bar; on decent browsers it'll show the full URL.

As to your complaining about the content: it's SRB. It's going to be stupid on /some/ level.

Can't really do that on the iPad. But my complaint was uncalled for. The post was written while I was hungover. I can't stand those kinds of smug self congratulatory type posts. I see it all the time on Facebook. It's a pet peeve of mine. If its not religion, it's some sentimental shit about being nice to one another or how a teacher teaches a lesson about life by filling a bottle with ping pong balls and sand or whatever. Faux-epiphany drives me nuts! Bleh. Enough that it makes me rant about it on a dime.

Professor Bans Fox News As Source In Class.... Personally I disagree with the professor on this one. The way my professors in college worked was to use a multitude of sources, and to always look for the bias behind any source. We were never to take information for granted. That's a great lesson to learn. Outright banning Fox, or even the Onion, makes the student lazy and non self reflective.

The comment section is borderline scary to hilarious. None the less, I find it a tragedy this type of political divisive language is making it's way into classes without critical discourse. It's kind of the point of 'dem liberal edumacation', which is supposed to turn kids into fair minded individuals: to be able to critically engage in a dialogue and learn something new. The kind of thing the SRB fears because it's the learning new thing they fear, and not learning the same shit over and over again.

Why would one even need to cite Fox News? Do they even do any investigative reporting one could cite? As far as I can tell their stories consist of A) Conservative spin and opinion pieces that wouldn't really be citable, or B) AP stories repackaged with conservative spin and opinion where one would be much better off skipping the middle man and citing AP.

I'm not joking when I say that I can't think of a situation where Fox News would be worth citing for ANYTHING.

I can't think of any reason to cite a TV news-tainment show period. Not Fox New, not CNN, not MSNBC, none of them. I suppose the exception would to pull a quote from someone relevant who appeared on one of their shows. Or maybe if you were studying propaganda techniques or something.

CNN and the broadcast networks produce a lot of original reporting that isn't necessarily available from AP or Reuters. They're often the first or only news organizations on a given story. I honestly don't know whether or how often that's the case for Fox News or MSNBC, but if/when it is, the same argument applies.

Why would one even need to cite Fox News? Do they even do any investigative reporting one could cite? As far as I can tell their stories consist of A) Conservative spin and opinion pieces that wouldn't really be citable, or B) AP stories repackaged with conservative spin and opinion where one would be much better off skipping the middle man and citing AP.

I'm not joking when I say that I can't think of a situation where Fox News would be worth citing for ANYTHING.

This is a professor of political science. Ignoring FOX News in context of American politics is like ignoring half the story, IMO. FOX News has been one of the greatest influence, directly or indirectly, of political discourse in US history the last maybe two decades. Without Fox as a platform, where would Trump be able to get the audience for his narcissistic drivel? Or any of the other political pundits for that matter. FOX News model is so succesful, it has shaped American news media in general for the worse. I never visit an American news site anymore. I used to check out CNN along with BBC News, but CNN has become so ridiculous over the year, that I've virtually stopped going there anymore. And this is CNN International, not CNN USA which looks like it's designed for children with the number of images in the same space.

Point in case, one is CNN International, the other is CNN USA. Same size screenshot in same browser. And what's weird, is that the International version has a report on slavery in the US, with articles on MLK and Lincoln. The US version articles on... a sob/sentimental story on a high school soccer player's life. And the bottom three videos are of three other athletes.

CNN and the broadcast networks produce a lot of original reporting that isn't necessarily available from AP or Reuters. They're often the first or only news organizations on a given story. I honestly don't know whether or how often that's the case for Fox News or MSNBC, but if/when it is, the same argument applies.

Yeah, CNN International does have some good articles. Like today they have some articles on slavery in the US which I'm going to read later. So they're aren't all that bad. Only thing is, you gotta go to the International version of CNN to get that apparently. I'm going to see if I can navigate to the same article on the CNN USA site without clicking on 'International' on top.

CNN and the broadcast networks produce a lot of original reporting that isn't necessarily available from AP or Reuters. They're often the first or only news organizations on a given story. I honestly don't know whether or how often that's the case for Fox News or MSNBC, but if/when it is, the same argument applies.

Maybe on the latest trial of the century which is only a story because they decided it would be a story.

Screenshot is wider because on CNN the right side has a market ticker and weather info. BBC uses that space to link to more articles. How big is the Jesse Jackson story in the US? Is it a big deal? Why is it the top story for BBC News 'Canada and US', but not mentioned in either CNN International or CNN USA? I don't really know the context here to come to my own conclusions on this.

Oh, sorry, was I supposed to glean something else from that screenie? Slavery? Outta there, just like the Pope.

Now I have to check out HuffPo, I need a Kim Kardashian fix. She's hot in maternity wear.

I was showing what news has value based on demographics. Generally the most significant one gets front page, at the top. And the more trivial gets thrown to the back. You'd think CNN USA was EPSN, and not a news site.

Oh, sorry, was I supposed to glean something else from that screenie? Slavery? Outta there, just like the Pope.

Now I have to check out HuffPo, I need a Kim Kardashian fix. She's hot in maternity wear.

I was showing what news has value based on demographics. Generally the most significant one gets front page, at the top. And the more trivial gets thrown to the back. You'd think CNN USA was EPSN, and not a news site.

As a long time NASCAR follower, but not so much anymore, the Danica Patrick blurb actually had some resonance.

Sports is Big Biz in the USA, most often to point of obsession. Similar to soccer riots in "other countries" except without the riots. Mostly. We get one or two. Now and then.

But yeah, BIG NEWS as it used to be, is gone. It's now a corporate diversified portfolio of information. Serving whatever market it's aimed at.

Walter Cronkite would not have survived in the post internet, post 9/11 environment. Dan Rather didn't.

I remember when ESPN was one freaking channel. Now it's what, at least four?

Usenet friend from West Virginia posted that he saw a minivan with these two bumper stickers:

1) "I'm Catholic and I vote!", and2) a ginormous Confederate flag.

His reaction: "Right before my eyes, they merged together into a mega sticker covering the entire back of the vehicle that said 'I exist in a complete vacuum of information and historical context and I require someone to feed me for my own safety.'"

Hint: consider what the reactionary elements in the Old South thought of popery as recently as 1960.